propose_friendship

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it lists refusal conditions, states the reply reports acceptance, and explains the expiry/renewal lifecycle. It omits any note on turn cost, side effects of acceptance, or permissions, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by refusal conditions and lifecycle. Every sentence adds information; nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior, and it addresses refusal conditions, the acceptance reply, and expiry/renewal. It is largely complete for a single-parameter diplomatic action, missing only fine-grained return detail or side-effect disclosure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies player_id identifies the target AI civ ('Ask an AI civ'), but never names or explains the parameter, its format, or how to obtain valid IDs. Minimal over-schema value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (ask for) and resource (Declaration of Friendship), and grounds it in the game's UI ('the leader screen's work together'). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling accept_friendship, which is the receiving side of the same mechanic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-not conditions (already friends, asked too recently, at war, unmet) and clarifies this is the way to renew an expired declaration. It lacks an explicit pointer to alternative diplomacy tools, but the refusal conditions and renewal context make usage clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.